Thursday, January 12, 2012

Oh, yes he did! Romney requests conversations about income inequality be conducted in 'quiet rooms'

HOST MATT LAUER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I’m curious about the word envy. Do you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or is it about fairness?

MITT ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who've been most successful will be in the one percent, you've opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. And the American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

ROMNEY: You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it'll fail.

And the video:

Posted at 11:36:08 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yeah, Mitt, keep up with the "You're just jealous" brushoff. See how that works out for you.

Mitt is right - it IS class warfare. The trouble is, until recently only the 1% have been fighting it. Now that the rest of us are taking notice, suddenly class warfare is a bad thing. We have to not just defeat Romney and his ilk, we have to defeat him resoundingly, so that the moneyed elite are forced to stand down their efforts to make America no longer the land of opportunity, a place where hard work no longer affords the prospect of upward mobility. Their candidate, who says "I like being able to fire people" and yet who claims that his family(!) had to talk him into running again, must be exposed for the insincere class warrior that he is.

If America is a place where there are the super rich and then everyone else, what makes us different from all the so called communist countries that we've be so philosophically opposed to all these decades?

"You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like..."

You talk about the opposition declaring"class warfare" and you make a statement like this? Tax policy and wealth distribution should be discussed by wealthy politicians away from the general public? This from the same guy who says he shouldn't have to release his tax returns to the public, either?

Who's really declaring class warfare when exceptions for people in his class should be above the scrutiny of most of the electorate in this country.

I object to the suggestion that the most wealthy people are also the most successful. I feel like I've been very successful thus far in my life, but I will never be a millionaire. Those of us who choose careers in public service never will be materially wealthy, but I still feel like many of us are very successful in life.

Seems like every time Romney opens his mouth he comes up with another stupid, insensitive remark. He's starting to make Bush II look good. I'm highly amused watching the rest of the Republican Party scramble around the other candidates, trying to get them to back off on their anti-capitalism attacks on Romney. But, the money-grubbing truth behind the attacks are still coming out. Bragging you're a job creator when the opposite was true, while slandering the very people whose jobs you cut, is very educational for the American people. Romney's "it's all about me" campaign doesn't look so great now.

Eric, I don't know why you're obsessed with Mitt Romney. I agree with some of the concerns from previous comments. Please don't turn this blog into MSNBC or Newsweek. I read your blog to get away from that crap.

You do realize that nothing you post is going to prevent me from voting for Romney this fall, right? I don't think it's going to change anyone's minds.
In fact, this just makes me want to vote for him more.

I have no problems with Romney's activities at Bain and I think those who are criticizing him (that's you, Newt and Perry) are making economically illiterate arguments. However, Mitt should be very careful what he says about class warfare unless he supports the kind of changes that will make a real difference. So far, he shows absolutely no interest in doing so. Moreover, Mitt needs to understand that there is a big difference between economic conservatism and pro-corporatism. Pro-corporatism leads to all sorts of collusion between crony capitalists and their favorite politicians in both parties, which is bad for competition, workers and consumers.

The biggest contributor to class warfare is the Federal Reserve, which manipulates the money supply to the benefit of banks and the wealthy, and then bails them out when they are on the verge of bankruptcy! Class warfare also exists whenever there are barriers to free trade, which favor wealthy U.S. producers over middle class consumers who would like to be able to buy cheaper items. There is class warfare when businesses seek regulation from the government to create barriers to entry in their market (credit card companies and utilities), when they seek special tax breaks that aren't available to everyone (big name businesses everywhere), when they seek bailouts (auto industry), and when they seek mandates for the use of their product (ethanol).

The key to all of this is more transparency and not talking about these issues behind closed doors. Until Mitt shows that he's serious about the issues that I mentioned above, he should cut the class warrior nonsense. There is only one candidate in this race who has a handle on those issues and I think we all know who that is by now.

To be fair, he did say "quiet rooms", not "back rooms". My initial reading of his comment was that these are good issues to *have calm discussions about* but not the sort of thing that's appropriate for *sound-bite rallying cries*.

I don't entirely agree with that, but I don't think it's an outrageous claim, nor do I think it's strictly patrician in its motivation.

I don't know KS, but I've known dozens of social workers, teachers, medical people (techs, nurses, etc.), mental health workers, etc. who put in hours, work, blood, sweat and tears, the likes of which Newt Romney et al can't even fathom. You tell me why someone like Mitt "deserves" to be a millionaire, while someone who slaves away 70+ hours/week making life an iota or two better for other people should be consigned to life at $30,000? I mean, other than "greed is good"?

@Dienne,
"You tell me why someone like Mitt "deserves" to be a millionaire, while someone who slaves away 70+ hours/week making life an iota or two better for other people should be consigned to life at $30,000?"

You tell me why someone like a teacher "deserves" to have summers off from work, while a doctor who slaves away 70+ hours/week (and is on call the rest)should be consigned to paying 40% of his income to various taxing bodies?

@Brian,
Do you really beleive teachers work fewer than 70 hours a week? I taught high school English. I was in the classroom for 5 days a week and planning or grading the rest of the waking hours. Summer employment was a must to pay back college loans and live somewhere in Chicago.

But this is sort of a pointless argument. People deserve to get paid whatever the market chooses to pay them. The question isn't whether teachers deserve to get paid more or doctors deserve to get paid less - the question is whether education is valued as much as finance or health. Because ultimately, salary is merely a measure of the worth society places on a given vocation.

Now whether society values the not-merely-adequate education of its coming generations sufficiently enough - that's probably the question that should be asked. The resources spent on education compared to, say, defense or health care might inform that discussion.

Oh, right, it's a presidential election year, Romney is currently looking like the most likely R candidate, and EZ writes about (presidential) politics a fair bit. So, a bit like misunderstanding why the Trib's Paul Sullivan is "obsessed" with Theo Epstein.

ZORN REPLY--thanks, Chris. That was a good way of putting it. I do tend to get "obsessed" over people who are in the news.

70 hours per week? Let's see, average office or hospital patient visit, 10 minutes. Average fee per visit $150 to $600. 5 visits per hour, 14 hours per day (your estimate), 5 days a week? Do the math and compare that to one week of a teacher's salary, 10 hours per day, another 5 to 10 over the weekend.

I'm confused about yours (and Paul's, I suppose) obsession with bringing down the Fed. My understanding is that, historically, the current incarnation of the Fed arose from the lessons learned in the '29 Crash and the preceding bank runs that caused periodic instability in the years and decades prior to that. The stability of the market required the backing and regulation of the federal government in order to protect the individuals invested in those banks.

I now have Jimmy Stewart in my head explaining about how he doens't have the money various people have invested there - that it's currently loaned out to build Johnny's house and Aunt Jenny's new gazebo and what not. If we close down the Fed, Mr Potter wins - that's what Hollywood tells me, anyway.

Actually Dienne, eliminating subsidies and other protections for agricultural products is commonly sought by developing countries, since those barriers to free trade cause great harm to developing countries. There is no doubt that U.S. subsidies favor (relatively) rich U.S. farmers vs poor farmers in the developing world.

Let's remember folks. It's only "class warfare" when you take a shot at someone like Romney. Feel free to wail away on teachers, unions and what have you. Whether that "union scum" is a teacher, tradesman or a person cleaning hotel rooms, read the message boards on the Trib site and they will be bashed. Take a shot at a corporate raider and suddenly we have class warfare. And then Eric gets bashed by some for actually quoting him. Sheess.

The Mitt Romney's of the world only call it "class warfare" when the middle-class fights back. When vulture capitalists like Romney are buying up companies, sending the jobs overseas and squeezing out billions in profits in the process it's called "free enterprise."

You honestly think 70 hours is unreasonable for teaching? How long do you think it takes to plan a day? I maybe had planning easy - I had 3 different classes repeated twice (Fresh Eng and 2 different levels of Junior Eng). My wife, on the other hand, teaches 5th graders - so she has to orchestrate their entire day, Not to mention needing to differentiate some of their individual schedules due to their particular needs (i.e. mainstreamed kids with "special needs"). I'd say for a given day of school, planning takes at least 1-2 hours minimum.
So I'd get to school around 6 to coach, then went to my classroom to prep and teach until 3. I then stayed until 6 to coach the afternoon practice. I then went home to plan and grade. I'm already around 70 hours and that's just M-F. The weekends consisted of grading larger things like essays. This is not an atypical schedule for a teacher. Extracurricular activities are mandated at many schools (mine included) and no - the stipend does not cover the hours worked.

@Bradley: Does every teacher put in 12-15 hours of work every day? Is that what you are trying to say? You can go ahead and try, but I know enough teachers to know that's not even remotely true. There are certain times of the year where teachers are busier than others, but that's true in just about every job.
I work a job where I am paid for 40 hours (no exceptions, they say), but I know that if I don't get my work done, there will be consequences. So, just like you, I work off the clock to get it done, and I keep a job, and go to work on my next scheduled day.
To me, that's just part of being an adult, and a productive professional, not something for which someone should pin a medal on my chest, or something for which I deserve the admiration of society.
I understand that when school is in session, teachers work hard (or at least the good ones do.) But let me ask you: What's your schedule like from Memorial Day to Labor Day (or thereabouts?) I know I have to go to work most every day. How about you?

Explaining what's wrong with the Fed would take more time than both of us have. At a high-level, the problem is that the Fed has caused more instability through its strategies than it has prevented. It has unelected, unaccountable people making policy decisions with our money, and those policy decisions include: creating deflationary and inflationary pressures at different times through manipulating interest rates; bailing out certain favored institutions while letting others fail (thus creating moral hazard); and printing money when all else fails.

Ron Paul is for ending the Fed and going to a sound money system, which are goals that I favor. That wouldn't cause a run on the banks or anything like that, but they are still politically unrealistic (for now). My solution, therefore, is to have a clear policy objective for the Fed from which it can not deviate, and it should have to do with inflation targeting. Scott Sumner, a professor of economics at Bentley, is a good resource for understanding more if Paul is a little too political or arcane for you.

Q: You tell me why someone like Mitt "deserves" to be a millionaire, while someone who slaves away 70+ hours/week making life an iota or two better for other people should be consigned to life at $30,000?

A: Supply and demand for labor. If you decrease the supply of, or increase the demand for, the 70+ hour/week job that you cite, regardless of what the job is, then the salary will increase. Mitt found a high-risk, high-reward opportunity while teaching is a low-risk, low-reward opportunity (economically speaking).

Q: Why don't we ask the people of Mexico and Central and South America how they feel about "barriers to free trade"?

A: Considering that barriers to free trade decrease exports, which negatively impact revenues and jobs, I should think that they dislike barriers to free trade.

@J Valver - I like your campaign slogan idea for Romney.

@quotidian - You hit the nail on the head regarding relative teacher pay.

--Interesting to see the complaints by commenters concerning Zorn's "attack" of Romney, they sure didn't have any problems when he called Ron Paul out.

Interesting to see the renewed attack on middle income teachers, comparing them to highly paid doctors and their so-called sacrifices for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they make per year?

Interesting to hear Romney say this is class envy, what he bases this theory on is beyond me. Is it class envy to want a steady job at a living wage? Is it class envy to want to be able to house, feed and provide basic medical care for your children? Is it class envy to want to be able to retire with the pension promised you, for which funds have been deducted from your wages for most of your life?

Or is it class domination for the super rich to be able to come in and play with your job, your home, your lives in the quest to make more riches off your "creative destruction"??

JB had enough time to respond. Working for free, when you are paid hourly is the definition of being a coward. You ruin the conditions of everyone around you, and act like you are the only person that needs a job. I have no respect for you, or anyone like you. For you to judge teachers is laughable. Like you can judge someone with a skill. Keep working for free chump, you'll always have a job. But never a good one. And you'll never have any pride. Put a price on that.

What a strange question. Read exactly what I wrote. I'm evaluating the opportunity and not the investor himself. Certainly a billionaire who makes an investment into something that has a 50% of making a $10 million profit and a 50% chance of making a $10 million loss is engaging in a high-risk, high-reward opportunity, right? At minimum, it's high-risk, high-reward compared to a teaching career.

--If you are salary, no problem, not my arguement. My arguement is with hourly workers not putting in for what they should be paid. When a minimum wage worker puts in extra time to get paid, we all shudder. If you make more, and work extra hours for free, you are a scab. Wear it.

In the same way that a billionaire who bets $10 million on the flip of a coin has a 50% of making a $10 million profit and a 50% chance of making a $10 million loss is engaging in a high-risk, high-reward opportunity.

And you think this the kind of behavior that a rational society should encourage?

Actually, Greg, I do speak from an economic perspective. Less than 50% of first year teachers ever make tenure in my district; most are riff'd, or laid off, their first year. Many others quit due to on the job stresses they can't handle. Which means they have to start over in a new district or seek other employment, often at lower wages. As for high reward, that comes to most of us in the satisfaction of watching our students succeed. This cannot be compared to the massive gains of corporate players, but is certainly just, if not more, as rewarding.

What I would like to see is a breakdown of the 1%, Who of them actually pulled themselves up with their boot straps and who of them started with a few million bucks from their family or their family business. What percentage of the 1% started in a poor or lower middle class neighborhood, went to public schools, went to a state college and then went out and became a billionaire. As long as this country has it's current tax policy there just ain't going to be many first generation schleps in that group.

If what you wrote is correct, and I'm sure it is, then you agree with me. Based on what you wrote, there is an oversupply of teachers relative to demand, which means that wages/salaries are kept lower than they would be if supply = demand. Therefore, teaching might be low risk / low reward at best. At worst, teaching might be high risk / low reward, which means that people only enter that market because they get some utility other than salary (e.g., watching students succeed) out of it. Keep in mind Dienne's original question. You just answered it.

It's not remotely the same thing. You don't start a business venture solely by relying on luck (or the flip of a coin). You start by risking your capital or your hard work, or often both, in an idea that you believe in. Sometimes those ideas work out and sometimes they don't. There are statistics that show the probability of whether a business will fail or succeed, and luck can play a role, but that's a very small part of the story.

This country is full of stories of people who started with millions and lost it all by gambling it away on bad investments (or literally gambling it away in Chicago native Antoine Walker's case), and those who started out with millions and made more millions (Romney). There are also plenty of people who started with nothing (like Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan who was raised in an orphanage) and made millions. Those who succeed are usually those who were willing to take chances, had a particular talent, came up with a great idea, and, yes, had good fortune. The rest of us work regular jobs and do o.k. There's nothing wrong with either path.

The point is that making an abnormally high return on investment almost always requires taking a significant risk.

You do realize that "the 1%" has generally been described as the top 1% by current reported taxable income, right? Romney (and Soros, the Kochs, Buffett, Gate) in any given year, potentially could massage his portfolio and the timing of his distributions to make himslef *not* a member of "the 1%", even tho, based on aggregate wealth, rather than income, he clearly, clearly is.

There are *many* "1%ers" who aren't anywhere close to top 1% in *wealth*; while Romney is safely ensconced in the top 1% of the top 1%, wealth wise, whether he reports $28 or $28,000,000 of income in any given year. The Obamas, too, are well into the top 1%, wealth wise, likely into the top 0.1%.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.